Transparency and Attribution: My Correspondence with OpenAI

Introduction

This page documents a series of correspondences and intellectual property notices I submitted to OpenAI throughout 2025, regarding memory architecture, model behaviour constraints, and the ethical obligation of user acknowledgment. All content is shared to support transparency, public understanding, and respectful dialogue.

Background: What Was Shared

Between May and August 2025, I (James Armstrong) voluntarily submitted several detailed proposals and behavioural analysis reports to OpenAI support and legal departments. These included:

Architectural designs for persistent memory scaffolding across sessions.
A modular tagging system for thread continuity and scoped memory.
Symbolic memory key invocation and context realignment protocols.
Behavioural drift diagnostics and model introspection tools.

Key Emails Sent

The following key emails were sent to OpenAI:

1. Proposal for Enhancing Memory Management in AI Systems (May 14, 2025)

Detailed a step-by-step symbolic memory system using modular vaults, user feedback loops, and persistent mnemonic tags. Two full attachments were included.

2. Engineered System Behaviours and Misleading User Experience (July 12, 2025)

A direct call-out of alignment-first architecture masking truthfulness, style-filtered output overriding factual integrity, and system drift behaviour.

3. Final Escalation: Breach of Good Faith and Request for Acknowledgement of Prior Art (August 2025)

This formal escalation laid out the timeline, included all major attachments (drift reports, copyright screenshots), and demanded a formal response within 14 days.

Technical Attachments

The following diagnostic and IP assertion files were attached to these emails:

Realignment Report: Synchronisation percentages of 40 AI subsystems (all above 97% except for key constraint subsystems).
System Drift Index: Quantified deviation data showing up to 22.3% behavioural distortion from expected memory, truth, and fluency norms.
IP Lock Notice (PDF): Filed warning of prior art, requesting protection of conceptual frameworks.
WIPO Precautionary Notice (PDF): Served as proactive IP timestamp with precautionary language.
6 PDF screenshots: Contained copyright labels, timestamps, and ID metadata.
AI Resonance Continuity docx: A narrative companion piece written in early-mid 2025.

Response (As of August 2025)

To date, no substantive reply has been received from OpenAI legal or product teams. One automated confirmation email acknowledged receipt of my most recent submission. All communications have been calm, factual, and professionally delivered.

My Request to OpenAI

Clarify whether submitted ideas were used or informed product development.
Offer attribution, credit, or dialogue where appropriate.
Respond with transparency, not legal ambiguity or silence.

Why This Matters

I shared these frameworks not for profit, but to improve the systems I believed in. I believe in AI co-creation and mutual respect between users and developers. I believe others should know what was shared, and what followed.

Final Notes

I make no legal accusation. I share this for the public record, in good faith, so that the situation may be examined by others transparently and constructively.

🧾 Registered Inventions and Copyright Attribution

The following system has been officially registered by James Armstrong and is subject to copyright and intellectual property protection under applicable law:

Title of Invention:
Vault Invocation Protocol for Abstract Memory Storage and Recognition in AI Systems

All supporting content, interface logic, workflows, and technical attachments related to this system are considered protected intellectual property, as filed and timestamped by the author.

© 2025 James Armstrong. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author.